• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: August 2013

President Obama: calling on Congress to debate and vote on use of military force in Syria

31 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Congress, Obama, Syria

President Obama. [2012 file photo]

This afternoon, at the White House:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 31, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON SYRIA

Rose Garden

1:52 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century.  Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.  And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead.  All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered.  Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity.  It also presents a serious danger to our national security.  It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.  It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.  It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.  This would not be an open-ended intervention.  We would not put boots on the ground.  Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.  But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.  Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.  And I’m prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I’ve made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard.  I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security.  And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.  I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.  As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.  We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.  And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited.  I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.  But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community:  What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?  What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare.  If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?  To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms?  To terrorist who would spread biological weapons?  To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world.  While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made.  Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends.  But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people:  I know well that we are weary of war.  We’ve ended one war in Iraq.  We’re ending another in Afghanistan.  And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.  In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve.  And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.  Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning.  And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations.  We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security.  I am looking forward to the debate.  And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country.  I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments.  We do what we say.  And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options.  But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions.  And neither were the members of the House and the Senate.  I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons.  And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage.  Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

                       END                2:02 P.M. EDT

The current do nothing Congress is going to have to do something.

Consider this – having a debate in Congress about an authorization for the use of military force in Syria makes a congressional debate about not raising the national debt and/or shutting down the government appear what it is – crass political posturing. Or, a 41st vote in the House defunding Obamacare, if you will. Congress wanted to not do anything about Syria and then complain. Now they won’t be able to do either. That’s 11th dimension chess at its finest. Well played Mr. President, well played.

Campaign Finance: What on earth for? – part 3

31 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, governor, Jay Nixon, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

The past few days, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 08/29/2013 A BETTER MISSOURI WITH GOVERNOR JAY NIXON UAW Region 5 PAC 721 Dunn Road Hazelwood MO 63042 8/27/2013 $6,000.00

C001135 08/31/2013 A BETTER MISSOURI WITH GOVERNOR JAY NIXON MACO Development Company, LLC PO Box 68 Clarkton MO 63837 8/29/2013 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

It’s not like the money will be used to work on reducing those veto proof republican majorities in the General Assembly, right? Because those offended republican legislators might then be inclined to avoid compromise toward the general good of the State of Missouri. By the way, how’s that strategery working out? Just asking.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: What on earth for? – part 2 (August 25, 2013)

Campaign Finance: What on earth for? (June 30, 2013)

Campaign Finance: very interesting (April 16, 2013)

Campaign Finance: still not running for anything (February 9, 2013)

We’re famous … or is that infamous

31 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gun control, health insurance, missouri, Obamacare

By “we” I mean Missouri. And if you want to see what the insane clown posse that runs the statehouse has done to our reputation, check out this front page article on DailyKos. What’ll you find there? Remember Bill Clinton’s recent quip about states where it’s easier to get a gun than to get health insurance? Here’s proof that our legislators think that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Campaign Finance: but wait, there’s more

31 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2014, 2016, campaign finance, governor, missouri, State Auditor, Tom Schweich

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111150 08/30/2013 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH Herzog Stanley 600 S Riverside Rd St Joseph MO 64507 Herzog Contracting 8/30/2013 $10,000.00

C111150 08/30/2013 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH Lewis & Clark Leadership Forum 10777 Sunset Office Drive Suite 10 Saint Louis MO 63127 8/30/2013 $30,000.00

[emphasis added]

Friends, in $10,000.00 increments.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: That’s entertainment! (August 29, 2013)

Campaign Finance: you’ve certainly got a friend… (August 22, 2013)

Campaign Finance: putting everyone to sleep (July 4, 2013)

Campaign Finance: a familiar amount, again (June 27, 2013)

Campaign Finance: it all adds up (June 22, 2013)

Campaign Finance: relying on the grassroots (June 7, 2013)

Fast-food workers have few options; just want a living wage

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

fast-food industry, fast-food workers, INCOME INEQUALITY, living wage, Minimum wage, missouri

Thursday saw about 100 fast-food workers in the St. Louis region participating in the latest of a series of ongoing protests demanding a wage hike to $15.00 an hour (nationally, fast-food workers average wage is about $8.94 an hour):

…  workers and organizers say they can’t live on the minimum wage, pointing to the disparity between their wages and the salaries of the people who run the corporations for which they work.

“We’re the ones busting our backs. He’s the one getting into his pool,” said protester Andrew Jackson, who has worked at Taco Bell on Hampton Avenue for 15 years and has five daughters, one of whom works at a McDonald’s and was also at Thursday’s rally. “I don’t think it’s fair that I have to work two jobs. I want time to be home with my family, too.”

Based on the letters to the editor that were printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after an earlier iteration of this protest, it seems that many still think that fast-food workers are minors living at home and working for pocket change. Or they’re low-skilled losers who need to take responsibility for themselves, work two jobs, go back to school, get a better job, etc. If the letter writers concede that nobody can live on the minimum wage, they still think that asking for what one characterized as the entry-level salary for a college graduate is just too presumptuous, never mind that there’s a big difference between a college graduate’s beginning salary, which usually quickly increases, and the near-static pay of a fast-food employee.

But did you notice that the worker quoted in the Post-Dispatch article cited above is an adult man who is attempting to support a family? Most fast-food workers aren’t carefree teenagers:

…  these jobs are no longer introductions to the world of work. The age of the average worker is 28, with 70 percent 20 years old or older, according to statistics compiled by AOL Jobs. One out of four has at least one child. A third has at least some college education. And, according to the National Employment Law Project, there is “limited occupational mobility,” so the positions don’t lead to higher paying positions let alone opportunities to own franchises.

Most of these people are working in the fast-food industry because that’s where the jobs are in today’s post-industrial economy. The days of good-paying manufacturing jobs seem to be long gone. And News Flash! Lots of fast-food workers do work two jobs – in order to survive. Nor is fast-food work easy. At it’s worst it can be a relentless, hot, dreary scramble to keep up the pace while keeping your cool as you deal with an often difficult, demanding clientele.

It isn’t as if the fast-food companies can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage either. Profits are soaring. For example:

… corporate fast-food giants are enjoying robust profits. McDonald’s raked in $5.5 billion in profits in 2012 – a 27 percent increase in profits over five years – while YUM! Brands posted $1.6 billion in profits last year.

So don’t let folks tell you that paying a decent raise will push the cost of fast food into the stratosphere. Just remember that you and I are already being hit up for that low-cost Big Mac that some of us would never purchase outright:

Wages are so low that many workers have to turn to public assistance for basic survival. Which means that taxpayers must subsidize the poverty wages that fast-food corporations pay their employees.

While we’re on the topic of compensation and value rendered, I ‘d like to draw your attention to a different but related matter. Thursday’s print edition of the Post-Dispatch reprinted* an article from the Kansas City Star about a recent analysis from the Institute for Policy Studies that concluded that:

A select group of the nation’s corporate chief executives has been paid far more than their performance warranted, according to a compensation analysis released Wednesday.

[…]

Nearly 40 percent of the men who appeared on lists ranking America’s 25 highest-paid corporate leaders between 1993 and 2012 have led companies bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, been fired for poor performance, or led companies charged with fraud-related activities.

The reason that I bring this up is that I want to know why folks think it’s presumptuous for those who do some of the hardest, dirtiest work in the country to ask for a living wage while white collar incompetents and crooks collect billions.

* I can only find this online reprint from the Wichita Eagle – but it’s the same article I’m looking at in my print paper.  

Campaign Finance: incandescent

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission.HRCC

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091068 08/30/2013 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC Kansas City Power & Light Co PO Box 418679 Kansas City MO 64141 8/28/2013 $7,500.00

[emphasis added]

Maybe they like their bright ideas.

Campaign Finance: counter volley

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Health Research Tax, Kansas City, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C131107 08/29/2013 COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH TREATMENTS AND CURES Donald Hall P O Box 410247 Kansas City MO 64141 Hallmark Cards CEO 8/29/2013 $100,000.00

C131107 08/29/2013 COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH TREATMENTS AND CURES Irvine Hockaday Jr 2600 Grand Blvd Suite 450 Kansas City MO 64108 Hallmark Retired CEO 8/29/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s at least one more person than the other side, right?

It’s all about the health research tax on the ballot in Jackson County for the November 2013 election:

C131107: Committee For Research Treatments And Cures

4131 North Mulberr Drive Ste 200 Committee Type: Campaign

Kansas City Mo 64116

[….] Established Date: 08/08/2013

[….]

Ballot Measures Election Date Subject Support/Oppose

Health Research Tax 11/05/2013 20-Year Half-Cent Sales Tax To Recruit Top Medical Researches To Kansas City Area Hospitals/Jackson County Support

[emphasis added]

To your health.

Previously, from the opposition:

Campaign Finance: not quite plural (August 22, 2013)

Campaign Finance: make it an even $50,000.00 (August 28, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chris Koster, HB 253, Jay Nixon, missouri, Tim Jones

Prior performance guarantees the same result when it comes to right wingnuts.

Yesterday, via Twitter, Speaker Tim Jones (r) took issue with Attorney general Chris Koster’s letter:

Tim W. Jones ‏@SpeakerTimJones

FINALLY: @koster4missouri defines himself: Obama/Nixon, Big Gov, tax & spend liberal. At least Missourians know. #MOHouse GOP:reduces taxes. 4:10 PM – 29 Aug 13

Which prompted a response from Yael Abouhalkah at the Kansas City Star:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah

Lame, name-calling response from @SpeakerTimJones to @Koster4Missouri smackdown of GOP’s #HB253. Any LEGAL problems w/opinion? 4:13 PM – 29 Aug 13

“…Any LEGAL problems w/opinion?…”

As if that would be a consideration? Just asking

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Campaign Finance: That’s entertainment!

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2014, campaign finance, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, State Auditor, Tom Schweich

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111150 08/29/2013 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH Peter Herschend 538 Oak Bluff Road Branson MO 65616 Herschend Family Entertainment Owner 8/28/2013 $12,500.00

[emphasis added]

The show goes on.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: you’ve certainly got a friend… (August 22, 2013)

Campaign Finance: putting everyone to sleep (July 4, 2013)

Campaign Finance: a familiar amount, again (June 27, 2013)

Campaign Finance: it all adds up (June 22, 2013)

Campaign Finance: relying on the grassroots (June 7, 2013)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things…

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorney General, Chris Koster, General Assembly, HB 253, missouri, Timothy Jones, veto

“….If the General Assembly did not intend that taxpayers should get any benefit from the backward-looking change, why include the language? Courts are loathe to render statutory meaningless….to say the tax tables….apply only prospectively robs the phrase ‘or before’ of any meaning….”

Well, the Speaker did ask. Attorney General Chris Koster’s (D) letter [pdf] in reply:

Attorney General of Missouri

August 29, 2013

The Honorable Timothy W. Jones

Speaker, Missouri House of representatives

State Capitol, Room 308A

201 West Capitol Avenue

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-6806

Dear Speaker Jones,

You ask whether the changes in Senate Substitute for House Bill 253 (2013) – vetoed by the Governor – “applied retroactively,” and therefore would enable taxpayers to “seek refunds of taxes previously paid for up to three prior tax years.”

In the opinion of this Office, the plain language of the new legislation suggests that, if certain triggering events set forth in the statute occur, taxpayers may seek refunds of taxes paid in the three preceding tax years.

The language that gives rise to this conclusion may be found in two key provisions of the new legislation. First, the proposed amendment to § 143.011.1(1) establishes the base tax table:

for all tax years beginning on or before the later of December 31, 2013, or the first calendar year after the amount of general revenue collected in any of the three fiscal years prior to such year by at least one hundred million dollars” (emphasis added)

Second, the proposed new § 143.011.2 provides that “[i]f the federal Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013,” or similar legislation,” becomes law, then:

the director of the department of revenue shall, by rule, adjust the tax tables of subsection 1 of this section to decrease the maximum rate of tax by one-half of a percent.

A taxpayer’s right to a refund for previous tax years depends on the interplay of these two provisions. If the statutory criteria are met such that § 143.011.1(1)’s changes to the tax table become effective , the base tax table is set not just for that calendar year, but also for all tax years before that year. That is, the new § 141.011.1(1) would set the tax rate not only for the tax year the provision becomes effective, but also retroactively for every preceding tax year in Missouri history.

[….]

Of course, that change alone would not entitle taxpayers to seek refunds for payments in previous tax years, because the base tax table defined in the new § 141.011.1(1) is identical to the base tax table in the old statute.

If the federal Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 or similar legislation also passes, however, the maximum tax rate in every tax table included in subsection 1 is decreased by one-half of a percent. § 143.011.2 As noted above, the new subsection 1 sets the tax table for the tax year the provision becomes effective and every year before. It follows, then, that the maximum tax rate would be reduced by one-half percent not only for the tax year in which the new legislation became effective, but also for the previous tax years. Because there is a three-year statute of limitations on filing an amended tax return, a taxpayer could seek a refund for the three previous years See § 143.801.1 (providing for a “refund of an overpayment” for up to three years after the original return was filed).

To illustrate the point, consider the following hypothetical: In 2010, 2011, and 2012, a taxpayer making $100,000 in taxable income each year would have been required to pay $315 plus 6% of the excess over $9,000 (or $5,460) in state income tax. Now that suppose that in 2013, HB 253 became the law, the conditions were met that required the tax table in § 141.011.1(1) to be adopted, and the federal marketplace fairness Act (or similar legislation) was enacted. As a result, this taxpayer’s rate, per the tax table in § 141.011.1(1), would be decreased by .5%, lowering his or her maximum tax rate to 4315 plus 5.5% of excess over $9,000. And because the tax table in § 141.011.1(1) applies to “all tax years beginning on or before” the tax year in which § 141.011.1(1) becomes effective, this taxpayer’s tax rate for 2010, 2011, and 2012 would be retroactively lowered as well. Using the newly revised rate, the taxpayer would have overpaid by $455 each year. That taxpayer, relying on the retroactively revised tax tables, may seek a refund.

In your opinion request, you state that “members of the House of Representatives need to be aware of any statutory language that would inadvertently cause Missouri Revised Statute § 141.011.1(1) to be applied retroactively.” The portion of § 141.011.1(1) that resets the base tax table for “all tax years beginning on of before” the year the provision becomes effective contains just such language. Inadvertent or not, the plain language of the statute is the first and most persuasive guide for courts in determining legislative intent. See Hadlock v. Dir. of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 335, 337-38 (Mo. banc 1993). here, the plain language of the statute alters the tax rate nor just for the year the new provision becomes effective and onward, but expressly alters the tax rates for tax years “before” that year. If the General Assembly did not intend that taxpayers should get any benefit from the backward-looking change, why include the language? Courts are loathe to render statutory meaningless, see id.; to say the tax tables in § 141.011.1(1) apply only prospectively robs the phrase “or before” of any meaning. Moreover, even if the language of the statute could be considered ambiguous, courts require a construction in favor of the taxpayers of our state and strictly against the government when taxes are imposed. See President Casino, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 219 S.W.3d 235,239 (Mo. banc 207).

Ina memorandum, dated August 9, 2013, that was sent to you from the Committee on Legislative Research and that has since become publicly available, two arguments are made in support of the purely prospective application of the new legislation:

[….]

First, the memorandum acknowledges that Missouri law permits taxpayers to seek refunds for overpayments in prior tax years, citing § 143.801, but argues that “The section has never been interpreted to permit reopening past tax periods due to later-enacted deductions, credits, or other tax breaks.” The memorandum ignores, however, the specific language of this particular taxation statute, which, by its express terms, resets the tax tables for tax years before the year in which the provision becomes effective. Contrast this with a number of other tax changes and deductions in which the effective date of the new provision applied to “all taxable years beginning on or after” a particular date. See, e.g., § 143.118; § 143.127; § 143.173.2.

Second, the memorandum suggests that Article I, § 13 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits any law that is “retrospective in its operation,” would prevent taxpayers from seeking refunds for past years (that is, “retrospectively”). But as the very case relied upon by the memorandum states, “The provision of the Constitution inhibiting laws retrospective in their operation id for the protection of the citizens and not the state….’The state may constitutionally pass laws retrospective lwas impairing its own rights, and may impose new liabilities with respect to transactions already past on the state itself or on the governmental subdivisions thereof.'” Graham Paper Co. v. Gehner, 59 S.W.2d 49, 51-52 (Mo. banc 1933); see also Savannah R-III Sch. Dist. v. Public Sch. Retirement Sys. of Mo., 950 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Mo. banc 1997) (“Because the retrospective law prohibition was intended to protect citizens and note the state, the legislature may constitutionally pass retrospective laws laws that waive the rights of the state.”). Thus, the constitutional prohibition against the retrospective application of laws would not pose a barrier to taxpayers seeking refunds under these circumstances.

Respectfully,

s/

CHRIS KOSTER

Attorney General

[emphasis in original]

Shorter Attorney General Koster: “You made a mess, you can’t blame anyone else.”

Previously:  

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 776,542 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...